logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.02.08 2015고단6198
사기
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On October 8, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract for the remainder of KRW 8,364 square meters with respect to D and purchase price of KRW 113,85 million, with respect to the forest land owned by Pyeongtaek-si E-si, and KRW 3,306 square meters, and KRW 4,98 square meters, including KRW 4,000,000,000,000 for KRW 113,850,000,000,000 for the purchase price on October 8, 2014, and KRW 3,00,000,000 for the second down payment on October 14, 2014, KRW 15,000,000 for the down payment on April 20, 2015, KRW 200,000,000 for the intermediate payment on April 20, 2015, KRW 28,500,000.

On November 6, 2014, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the victim on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant, at the Defendant’s office located in the fifth floor of the H building in Pyeongtaek-si on November 6, 2014, on the following grounds: “The instant land is owned within the inner area; and (b) the instant land is purchased; (c) the Defendant would be paid KRW 198 million with the victim for the purchase price on November 6, 201, an intermediate payment of KRW 120 million on December 11, 2014, and the remainder of KRW 48 million on March 29, 2015 (hereinafter “instant land”).

However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to transfer ownership of the instant land to the victim even if the Defendant was paid only part of the down payment to D, as seen above, even if he received the purchase payment from the damaged party.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim on November 6, 2014; (b) obtained KRW 30 million as the down payment from the victim on November 6, 2014; and (c) KRW 70 million as the intermediate payment on December 11, 2014; and (d) acquired KRW 100 million in total from the Defendant’s bank account in the name of the Defendant, respectively.

2. The Defendant and the defense counsel did not conclude that the instant land was owned by the Defendant and the victim, and did not complete the registration of the transfer of ownership to the instant land.

arrow